The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik

figure of that time who may have known Soloveitchik was Michael Levi Rodkinson. Rodkinson (also known as Frumkin) is a fascinating character, publisher of Hasidic hagiography, editor of numerous journals, translator of the Talmud into English, ex-Hasid and moderate reformer. Rodkinson lived in London at the same time as Soloveitchik and may have traveled in the same circles, although I have not found any evidence of their acquaintance. They shared an aristocratic pedigree: Soloveitchik was the grandson of R. Hayyim of Volozhin; and Rodkinson was the grandson of R. Aaron of Starosselje, the celebrated disciple for R. Shneur Zalman of Liady, who ended up rejecting the dynastic succession of Chabad and began a small branch of Chabad after R. Shneur Zalman’s death. R. Aaron’s Sha’ar ha-Yihud ve-Emunah is considered one of the great Hasidic texts in the Chabad tradition. While as far as we know, Soloveitchik remained an ultra-Orthodox Jew, Rodkinson eventually moved toward the Haskalah. Yet he remained a defender of tradition and produced a “new” Talmud in English translation that removed all the superstitious elements. Rodkinson also worked against anti-Semitism, believing that if Christians knew the Talmud without its irrational components, they would not be against it. Rodkinson was much more in the thick of the Jewish world of his time than Soloveitchik and suffered immense resistance for his work and his personal life. And Rodkinson didn’t seem to have an interest in Christianity, even as he was often accused of collaborating with missionaries. On Rodkinson, see Jonathan Meir, Literary Hasidism: The Life and Work of Michael Levi Rodkinson (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2016).

      33 Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, 40.

      34 See Stampfer, Lithuanian Yeshivas, 63, 64.

      35 Ibid., 43.

      36 Yad Hazakah, or “strong hand,” is the traditional euphemism to describe Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (Code of Law).

      37 Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, 134.

      38 Qol Qore: A Voice Crying (London: Elliot Stock, 1868), 3.

      39 Qol Qore: The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament (London: Rabbi Elias Soloweyczyk, 1868).

      40 See Alexander McCaul, The Old Paths, or the Talmud Tested by Scripture, Being a Comparison of the Principle and Doctrines of Modern Judaism with the Religion of Moses and the Prophets (London: London Society’s House, 1880). Even if Soloveitchik never read The Old Paths, McCaul was part of a much wider circle of missionaries who were attempting to convert Jews at that time. Soloveitchik surely was aware of the larger phenomenon even if he may not have been aware of McCaul.

      41 See Qol Qore or The Talmud and the New Testament (Paris: Polyglotte de Charles Blot, 1870), 50–56.

      42 Branicki was a wealthy Polish nobleman who accompanied Napoleon during the Crimean War. He was known for becoming owner of the Montrésor Château in 1849 and was a politician and a financier, involved in the creation of the Banc Crédit Commercial de France in 1858. See the blog “Social History in the Touraine: Central France,” https://jimmcneill.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/montresor-sure-%e2%80%98tis-a-little-bit-of-poland-in-the-touraine.

      43 Wogue was a respected rabbi who was educated in France. In 1851, Salomon Munk and Adolph Franck established a chair of Jewish history at the Ecole Centrale Rabbinique at Metz; Wogue held that chair until his retirement in 1894. He was prolific and known for his French commentary to the Pentateuch with annotations from rabbinic sources (1860–1869). We do not know anything about his relationship to Soloveitchik but can assume that if he did the translation, he had some regard for the author and his work. His edition of Qol Qore is listed in the bibliography of the entry on him in The Jewish Encyclopedia. For a short, largely positive, review of Wogue’s 1870 translation, see “Bulletin Bibliographique,” in Archives Israélites: Revue Politique, Religieuse et Litteraire (April 15, 1870). I want to thank Eliyahu Stern for this reference.

      44 A second edition of the French translation, just to Mark, appears in 1874. Soloveitchik noted that a few pages of the 1870 edition were lost at the printers, so he republished his commentary to Matthew in 1874 and 1875. Regarding the French scene, it is worth noting that Joseph Salvador, born of a Jewish father of Spanish descent and a Catholic mother, published (in 1838) his Jesus-Christ et sa doctrine, one of the earliest works by a Jew (Salvador identified as a Jew) on Jesus. It is unclear whether Soloveitchik knew of Salvador’s work. One would assume that Wogue knew of its existence.

      45 Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, 95.

      46 Ibid., 110. Hyman notes differences in the 1985 edition, but they did not seem to be substantive enough to question the use of it as our base text.

      47 The history of Hebrew translations of the New Testament goes back to Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut (mid-fourteenth century), who translated Matthew into Hebrew in his ‘Even Bohan, known as “The Shem Tov Matthew,” published in 1380. Other Hebrew editions of Matthew appeared in the Middle Ages as well, including Munster Matthew (1537), by Sebastian Munster; and Du Tillet Matthew (1553), by Jean du Tillet. In modern times, we have a Hebrew translation of Luke published in Leipzig in 1735 by Immanuel Frommann that includes a rabbinic commentary. Frommann was a Jewish apostate as well as a kabbalist. The London Society for Promoting Christianity, founded in 1809, supported a Hebrew translation of the New Testament undertaken by Judah d’Allemand. Matthew was published in 1813, Mark in 1815, and Luke in 1816. Alexander McCaul, who ran the London Society for Promoting Christianity, solicited a revision of earlier Hebrew translations employing Jewish apostate Stanislaus Hoga and Johann Christian Reichardt. This new edition appeared in 1840. Another Hebrew translation of note is that of the Jewish apostate Isaac Salikinsohn, who lived in London, where he served as a Presbyterian minister. His Hebrew translation of the New Testament was published in 1886, but Delitzsch’s was considered more reliable by many scholars. Delitzsch used all these translations in his own edition, which appeared around the time Soloveitchik was writing his commentary.

      48 Pinchas E. Lapide, Hebrew in the Church: The Foundations of Jewish–Christian Dialogue (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), esp. 82–94. The original Hebräisch in den Kirchen was published in 1976. In his Israelis, Jews and Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 49, Lapide notes that Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation of the Gospels was used in Israeli secondary school curricula to teach students about Christianity.

      49 Schorsch, Leopold Zunz, 197.

      50 Cited in Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 84. It should be noted that Delitzsch was also a figure who attracted the attention of other traditional Jews who were engaged in Hebrew printing. For example, Michael Levi Rodkinson was in contact with Delitzsch about various matters of Hebrew and translation. See Michael Levi Rodkinson, Pentateuch: Its Languages and Its Characters (Chicago, 1894); and Meir, Literary Hasidism, 34.

      51 One strange feature of the French Mark commentary is that it is obviously edited in order to match the common Christian French Bible translation that they used. Jordan Levy was able to discern this by reading the French translation of Matthew that exists as she was simultaneously translating it from Hebrew.

      52 Kaufmann wrote glowingly on Delitzsch as a scholar and translator. See David Kaufmann, “Franz Delitzsch,” in his Gesammelte Schriften (Frankfurt am Main, 1908). In English, see Kaufmann, “Franz Delitzsch,” Jewish Quarterly Review (o.s.) (1890): 386–399.

      53 Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 91.

      54 On Delitzsch, see Alan Levenson’s superb essay, “Missionary Protestants as Defenders and Detractors of Judaism: Franz Delitzsch and Hermann Strack,” Jewish Quarterly Review 92, nos. 3–4 (January–April 2002): 383–420.

      55 Ibid., 385.

      56 Ibid., 408–412.

      57 Ibid., 392–394.

      58 Ibid., 394. I say certain caveats because Delitzsch remained a firm believer in the superiority of Christianity. While defending the Talmud, he did so only to view it as a legitimate and worthy precursor to the Gospel. What Delitzsch did accomplish was to